Why should anyone believe you when you say Shika dosen't get Batman's essence when you don't really have much respect for the medium Batman comes from?

I'd trust his thoughts on the subject more than I would yours.

Stop putting words into my mouth. I never said **** the comics or I don't respect it. I love the comics of Batman when it's in the hands of specific writers who are telling stories I like to read. Im saying there's a point when a director or studio turns around a changes things from the source material because it's a different medium with a different target audience. In those moments, the comics become irrelevant. Of course theyre relevant, that's where Batman comes from, and certain comic stories are used for inspiration. But when it comes to film it's not the be all/end all of what needs to be done to tell a good story. It's about different interpretations.

I can care less if somebody believes me, but Shikamaru constantly acts like his 21 year old self knows everything there is to know about the "essence" of Batman to the point where he claims this and that are ESSENCE. That's not the definition of essence. All it means is what makes him who is through how he came to be. Everything else is subjective.

He acts as if THIS IS THE ESSENCE AND IF IT'S NOT MET, IT'S WRONG. So if people like Jett from Batman On Film (keep your opinions of the guy to yourselves, im NOT talking about him personally) or the legendary Michael Uslan....if theyre loving the ending to Rises and crying and they feel it's a great ending and the "essence" then theyre wrong?? Really? People who have been hardcore fans for 45 to 60 years of Batman's existence.

I mean, even though it's a different medium and it can go in different directions from the source material...what Nolan is doing is just as valid of an interpretation as any comic book. It's not an elseworld story, it's an adaptation. And adaptations can change all they want. Why is it valid? Or more valid than Batman & Robin? Because the essence and spirit of the character is intact. Dark, tragic, beast of a character who fears bat, loses his parents in front of him, and takes the crusade into scaring criminals. This is the true essence and Nolan could take the story into whatever direction he pleases.

I dislike things about Batman Returns and Batman Forever, but I love things about them as well. I nitpick. We all do. But the essence is still in place. I respect Burton for changing things up and taking his story someplace else. He still captured the essence.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

I didn't take anything out of context. I addressed exactly what you said.

I'm not speaking for them. I said no one is faulting Nolan for wrapping up Bruce's story. I didn't say they agreed with doing it the way he did.

Perhaps you should read the posts properly in future. Ridiculous man.

I read your post just fine and you did deliberately take words out of my post so you could go on a rant about it. That particular issue has been beaten to death on these forums. I wasn't addressing it in my post and I don't see any reason for you to go off on me for something I wasn't even debating. I was addressing Phantasm and Shika's rants about how Nolan betrayed the comic books, primarily the whole notion of "Batman forever."

Phantasm outright admitted that he has a closed-minded view on the issue of Batman quitting, which is fine. At least he's willing to admit it. But you did attempt to speak for him when you claimed "no one" is faulting Nolan for wrapping up the story when Phantasm said in his post that he DOES fault Nolan for wrapping up the story. It's pretty darn clear in his post.

Phantasm argued in his post earlier that it was NOT okay to wrap up Batman's story and it seems Shika is very much against that idea as well. Perhaps you shouldn't speak for the others.

Not exactly:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

Suddenly the universe wasn’t open-ended. It was being driven to a conclusion. Keeping the universe closed off is not an idea that I’m necessarily opposed to. Unfortunately, it became the overwhelming function of the film to such an extent that the story was damaged.

I'm fine with "wrapping up Batman's story." The question is whether it gets wrapped up in a way consistent with the character or not. For example, in Batman Beyond its alright because Bruce is no longer physically able to be Batman, despite wanting to be Batman. It isn't a collapse of his character, just of his physical ability. It is still consistent with how he is portrayed in the Batman mythos.

Batman always fights with the hope that one day things might get better, but they never do, so his fight is a lifelong crusade. BB and TDK reference that hope without ever suggesting that the hope is realistic - only in TDKR does it actually happen in a badly executed fashion.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrow_22

Look for reports of mysterious heroism in the next 6 years. Then check back on this thread

Shika thinks he knows what the essence of Batman or anything means, but he doesn't. The essence is simply Batman being a dark character who was created through his fear of bats & how his parents were taken from him in front of his eyes. He promises to strike fear into the hearts of criminals through the Batman. THAT is the essence. Anything else is subjective. What kind of path he goes on, how long he's batman, if he stays in the cowl forever, if he retires at some point, who he faces, who he dates, it's ALL up to the writer who is writing the piece. Everybody has their interpretation from that point on.

Batman keeps the crusade going on forever and is written accordingly because comics can never end and they MUST continue with Bruce as Batman to sell their issues. End of story. The comics don't have the luxury of ending the story or doing a trilogy with a beginning, middle and end. Nolan, through film, had that luxury. He wanted to do something different and he gave people his ending.

Haven't we had this whole talk about the essence of Batman already?

Look, what I mean is...you know what? I'm just going to repost the post that you ignored in that other thread:

I'm fine with "wrapping up Batman's story." The question is whether it gets wrapped up in a way consistent with the character or not. For example, in Batman Beyond its alright because Bruce is no longer physically able to be Batman, despite wanting to be Batman. It isn't a collapse of his character, just of his physical ability. It is still consistent with how he is portrayed in the Batman mythos.

Batman always fights with the hope that one day things might get better, but they never do, so his fight is a lifelong crusade. BB and TDK reference that hope without ever suggesting that the hope is realistic - only in TDKR does it actually happen in a badly executed fashion.

[/FONT]

So you contradicted yourself in multiple posts. In your other post you talked about how Batman goes on forever in the comics and then at the end you said you had a problem with Nolan going against this in TDKR.

Phantasm outright admitted that he has a closed-minded view on the issue of Batman quitting, which is fine. At least he's willing to admit it. But you did attempt to speak for him when you claimed "no one" is faulting Nolan for wrapping up the story when Phantasm said in his post that he DOES fault Nolan for wrapping up the story. It's pretty darn clear in his post.

I never admitted that... I was addressing Bruce's characteristics in the comics. I'm not denying there are points where he isn't active as Batman due to physical reasons. I'm saying that he can't completely give up being Batman even when he is physically incapable of fighting crime. The Dark Knight Returns and Batman Beyond make this very very clear. Only in the Nolanverse does Bruce psychologically and spiritually give up the Batman persona in an absolute, complete retirement.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrow_22

Look for reports of mysterious heroism in the next 6 years. Then check back on this thread

Stop putting words into my mouth. I never said **** the comics or I don't respect it. I love the comics of Batman when it's in the hands of specific writers who are telling stories I like to read. Im saying there's a point when a director or studio turns around a changes things from the source material because it's a different medium with a different target audience. In those moments, the comics become irrelevant. Of course theyre relevant, that's where Batman comes from, and certain comic stories are used for inspiration. But when it comes to film it's not the be all/end all of what needs to be done to tell a good story. It's about different interpretations.

And like I said before...most people understand that there are different interpretations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

I can care less if somebody believes me, but Shikamaru constantly acts like his 21 year old self knows everything there is to know about the "essence" of Batman to the point where he claims this and that are ESSENCE. That's not the definition of essence. All it means is what makes him who is through how he came to be. Everything else is subjective.

He acts as if THIS IS THE ESSENCE AND IF IT'S NOT MET, IT'S WRONG. So if people like Jett from Batman On Film (keep your opinions of the guy to yourselves, im NOT talking about him personally) or the legendary Michael Uslan....if theyre loving the ending to Rises and crying and they feel it's a great ending and the "essence" then theyre wrong?? Really? People who have been hardcore fans for 45 to 60 years of Batman's existence.

I obviously can't speak for Shika, so hopefully he has a rebuttal to this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

I mean, even though it's a different medium and it can go in different directions from the source material...what Nolan is doing is just as valid of an interpretation as any comic book. It's not an elseworld story, it's an adaptation. And adaptations can change all they want. Why is it valid? Or more valid than Batman & Robin? Because the essence and spirit of the character is intact. Dark, tragic, beast of a character who fears bat, loses his parents in front of him, and takes the crusade into scaring criminals. This is the true essence and Nolan could take the story into whatever direction he pleases.

I dislike things about Batman Returns and Batman Forever, but I love things about them as well. I nitpick. We all do. But the essence is still in place. I respect Burton for changing things up and taking his story someplace else. He still captured the essence.

No one here has said its invalid. People just dont like the execution of certain elements.

__________________"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us... you blinked."

and you did deliberately take words out of my post so you could go on a rant about it.

I don't need to take words out of your posts to 'rant' about anything. All I have to do is make a post and say what I want. I don't need anything you say as a crutch to say it.

Quote:

That particular issue has been beaten to death on these forums. I wasn't addressing it in my post and I don't see any reason for you to go off on me for something I wasn't even debating.

I wasn't going off at you. I am now because you've turned this personal.

Where did I have a personal dig at you in anything I said in that post?

Quote:

I was addressing Phantasm and Shika's rants about how Nolan betrayed the comic books, primarily the whole notion of Batman forever.

I know what you were addressing. I've read the whole discussion. Where did I say different about what you were addressing?

Quote:

Phantasm outright admitted that he has a closed-minded view on the issue of Batman quitting, which is fine. At least he's willing to admit it. But you did attempt to speak for him when you claimed "no one" is faulting Nolan for wrapping up the story when Phantasm said in his post that he DOES fault Nolan for wrapping up the story.

What post are you talking about? Link me to it please.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

There are essentials and non-essentials. I understand films are a different medium. For example, I've read just about every Tolkien book there is, but I'm pretty okay (or at least ambivalent) with a lot of the changes PJ does. The ones I'm not okay with? For example, butchering Faramir's character by turning him into Boromir 2.0 for contrived drama purposes rather than maintaining his noble aspects.

The comics tell us that Batman is Batman forever. He doesn't quit. He doesn't move on. He can't, precisely because he is that enduring "immovable object" that the Joker talks about. He's more hardcore about his rules than Superman, even though Superman is the boy scout! Frankly, I feel like getting this wrong was a huge error for TDKR. That doesn't mean I can't watch TDKR and enjoy it, but it does mean I'm critical of this aspect of the film.

I'm failing to see the contradiction. Are you saying Bruce quits and moves on in The Dark Knight Returns or in Batman Beyond? Neither seems to me like a Bruce that has "moved on" and left the persona behind.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrow_22

Look for reports of mysterious heroism in the next 6 years. Then check back on this thread

It's not addressed. You still don't know what the essence means. None of that means anything. Because it's all up to interpretation past the phase of his tone and what makes him become the Batman. It doesn't matter what era it is. The 60s tv show is enjoyable, it was groundbreaking, it was in line with the comics of the time, but its not the essence of Batman as he was created. Neither is Batman and Robin. Is Batman a dark character who scares criminals in the night there? No.

Nolans movies borrowed from all eras one way or another. Not just the modern age.

Now, I took the time to read your posts. Thank you because they were well written and thought out. I agreed with some of it but I don't believe the majority relates to what needs to be kept or not...I don't believe it's the essence of Batman. You're breaking up each era as if THIS is honoring that era, and then these movies are honoring THIS era over here! But that's not how I see it. The essence of Batman should be there at all times, no matter what era. And Nolans and Burtons and Timm's stuff were in line with that essence. Of course it's not to say they shouldn't make the tv series from the 60s, go ahead. But that stuff along with Shumachers (mainly sequel) is the only crime against this essence we're speaking of. You're also going too much in detail with what you think makes up the characters essence or core.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

That's the thing though, Bruce has a very finite view of his Batman career in BB. He makes it clear that he wants to clean up the streets, create a symbol for others to follow, and be done with it. Now whether TDKR executed this idea well is another issue altogether, but it's not like the seed wasn't planted for him to quit in the first movie. It was there all along and fans chose to ignore it, then got mad about it when Nolan followed through with it.

That was in BB. TDK already undid that ground. The idea that Bruce could quit anytime soon and be with Rachel was a delusion he had that broke by the end of the second film. The first film is about him learning the means of striking fear into criminals and becoming Batman. The second film is about him getting more into the Batman mindset and into the idea that this is who he is not only meant to be, but who he has to be. Rachel's death, Harvey's corruption and the Joker himself are the major factors that play into this character arc of his. TDKR just ignores that character arc in TDK and pretends like it didn't happen. I've had this debate many times though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

My honest opinion: I don't believe "Bruce is cursed to be Batman forever" was a key message of TDK. It was merely one possible direction the story could go if it continued.

I think the message of TDK is more about having to make impossible choices that may otherwise be perceived as wrong in order to defeat a greater evil in a time of crisis. It's about coming face to face with the devil and having to make serious compromises in order to come out with some measure of victory. And I think it's about accepting that it might have been your own actions that invited the devil to come wreak havoc in the first place.

I don't think any of that has any bearing how how long Bruce is supposed to be Batman for. TDK did indeed sum up some of the classic aspects of the Batman mythos, but I believe it did so in a way that works in a confined way. The story was free to go any number of directions, as the ending had a large degree of ambivalence to it.

I don't believe "cursed" is the way to put it. A curse is defined as something horrible that you cannot get rid of no matter how hard you try and how much you want to. Although that is true with Batman to an extent that he is cursed forever, I don't think it is true in the way you're referring to it as. Bruce intentionally transformed himself into Batman and knows why he is important and why he has to do what he does.

What you said is certainly true about TDK and it is a constant theme in the film but I personally I personally never found it to be the theme. I think that if you analyze Bruce's character arc and progression from the start of BB to the end of TDK, what I told redfirebird2008 is the character arc that Bruce experiences. TDK could have went in a number of possible story directions but I felt that this character arc I am referring to was fully necessary to be there in order for the story to feel like a natural continuation. As The Joker already said, not a single person walked out of theatres expecting Batman to go home and retire for 8 years. But once again, this is a discussion that we've had over and over again in this thread.

It's not addressed. You still don't know what the essence means. None of that means anything. Because it's all up to interpretation past the phase of his tone and what makes him become the Batman. It doesn't matter what era it is. The 60s tv show is enjoyable, it was groundbreaking, it was in line with the comics of the time, but its not the essence of Batman as he was created. Neither is Batman and Robin. Is Batman a dark character who scares criminals in the night there? No.

The essence of the character seems like a very subjective thing. The character has been very flexible through the years. That's part of why it has endured so long. If it wasn't flexible, it would have died off a long time ago. As much as you might dislike Batman & Robin, we have a pretty big Batman fan on these forums who loves that film (Kane). I doubt he would say it betrays the essence of the character. There is room for different interpretations.

I don't believe "cursed" is the way to put it. A curse is defined as something horrible that you cannot get rid of no matter how hard you try and how much you want to. Although that is true with Batman to an extent that he is cursed forever, I don't think it is true in the way you're referring to it as. Bruce intentionally transformed himself into Batman and knows why he is important and why he has to do what he does.

What you said is certainly true about TDK and it is a constant theme in the film but I personally I personally never found it to be the theme. I think that if you analyze Bruce's character arc and progression from the start of BB to the end of TDK, what I told redfirebird2008 is the character arc that Bruce experiences. TDK could have went in a number of possible story directions but I felt that this character arc I am referring to was fully necessary to be there in order for the story to feel like a natural continuation. As The Joker already said, not a single person walked out of theatres expecting Batman to go home and retire for 8 years. But once again, this is a discussion that we've had over and over again in this thread.

What would you say "the" theme is then? By definition, a theme in fiction must be a broad concept that comments on some aspect of life. Therefore, "Bruce must be Batman forever" does not qualify as a theme. Obviously his character arc is something separate, but it should ultimately be an expression of that theme. Also, if it's the most prevalent and recurring theme- chances are, it's the main theme. The major theme is also usually summed up by a line of dialogue. In TDK's case, the obvious pick would be:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

Well, I guess you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain...

(Heh, and indeed Phantasm).

I've been reading a several books about screenwriting lately as research for my own writing, so my apologies if I'm coming off like some wannabe screenwriting professor, but all the stuff I've been learning is very fresh in my head right now.

The essence of the character seems like a very subjective thing. The character has been very flexible through the years. That's part of why it has endured so long. If it wasn't flexible, it would have died off a long time ago. As much as you might dislike Batman & Robin, we have a pretty big Batman fan on these forums who loves that film (Kane). I doubt he would say it betrays the essence of the character. There is room for different interpretations.

I think the major details don't matter. But there is only one essence in my opinion. But I enjoy Batman & Robin as a comedy/spoof. But it's still going against the essence, it's making fun of it. Whether that was intentional or not LOL. And I feel the exact same way about the 60s series. It doesn't mean you cant enjoy it, but it goes against the grain completely. It's like how people have the right to dislike Nolans trilogy, Burtons film too. But they shouldn't be saying things like it's not the essence of what Batman is, therefore it's rubbish. That's not true at all.

I nitpick the HELL out of Batman Returns and some of you guys nitpick the **** out TDKR. But I would be wrong if I said (and I may have in the past) that Returns is bad because it's not the essence of the character. Because, actually it still is. As a matter of fact I will say that even Batman Forever, especially when you include the deleted scenes, still honors the essence of Batman in many ways. Even if there's lighter moments.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

I can care less if somebody believes me, but Shikamaru constantly acts like his 21 year old self knows everything there is to know about the "essence" of Batman to the point where he claims this and that are ESSENCE. That's not the definition of essence. All it means is what makes him who is through how he came to be. Everything else is subjective.

He acts as if THIS IS THE ESSENCE AND IF IT'S NOT MET, IT'S WRONG. So if people like Jett from Batman On Film (keep your opinions of the guy to yourselves, im NOT talking about him personally) or the legendary Michael Uslan....if theyre loving the ending to Rises and crying and they feel it's a great ending and the "essence" then theyre wrong?? Really? People who have been hardcore fans for 45 to 60 years of Batman's existence.

Already addressed this in the posts I linked. I don't mind new takes on Batman. I don't mind new versions of Batman. I don't mind different interpretations. I don't have a problem with any of those.

What I do have a problem with is when you set up a continuity that establishes the same essence as the Batman of the Modern comics only to go against it later on. Once you've set up the ground rules of your universe, the option to portray the character in a manner that completely goes against that particular essence goes bye-bye. Had the essence of the Batman of the Modern comics not been there in that new established continuity in the first place, it wouldn't have been a problem in the first place. Had BB and TDK not established the essence of the Batman that I know so well, TDKR's ending and overall message wouldn't have been as much of a problem for me in the first place.

Why should I care about what people like Jett and Uslan say? When did I say their opinions are wrong? I never made such statement. I don't form formulate my opinions based on what other people think just because they happen to think that way. I am not a blind follower. I welcome people's opinions and valid/invalid criticisms but at the end of the day, my opinion stands alone and is formed by my own critical thoughts. I saw TDKR and I think the message goes against everything the comics have told me Batman is (see above paragraphs before *****ing to me again about there being different takes and different versions of Batman).

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

It's not addressed. You still don't know what the essence means. None of that means anything. Because it's all up to interpretation past the phase of his tone and what makes him become the Batman. It doesn't matter what era it is. The 60s tv show is enjoyable, it was groundbreaking, it was in line with the comics of the time, but its not the essence of Batman as he was created. Neither is Batman and Robin. Is Batman a dark character who scares criminals in the night there? No.

Nolans movies borrowed from all eras one way or another. Not just the modern age.

Now, I took the time to read your posts. Thank you because they were well written and thought out. I agreed with some of it but I don't believe the majority relates to what needs to be kept or not...I don't believe it's the essence of Batman. You're breaking up each era as if THIS is honoring that era, and then these movies are honoring THIS era over here! But that's not how I see it. The essence of Batman should be there at all times, no matter what era. And Nolans and Burtons and Timm's stuff were in line with that essence. Of course it's not to say they shouldn't make the tv series from the 60s, go ahead. But that stuff along with Shumachers (mainly sequel) is the only crime against this essence we're speaking of. You're also going too much in detail with what you think makes up the characters essence or core.

The Nolan films did borrow a lot from each era. You're absolutely right about that. However, they borrowed mainly when it came to story, character portrayals, and context. The essence of Batman specifically was taken straight-off-the-page from the Modern Age of comics. You can borrow from various ages when adapting something, but there is only one essence that you can borrow.

If Nolan really did want to close off his universe so no other directors could come in and continue his story, then why have TDKR end with Blake becoming the next Batman?

And I still don't understand why he didn't allude to Bruce continuing on as Batman after the events of TDK until the Dent Act came into play. I have no issues with the Dent Act itself, but Bruce just retiring the night Dent dies makes no sense, unless the Dent Act was erected the very next morning; and even that makes less sense, lol.